THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANASTACIO BOLIVAR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Bolivar

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Anastacio Bolivar, Perfecto Garbiles, Vicente Ollosca, and Benjamin Tormes for the killing of Edilberto Galan on the night of December 29, 1953, in Barrio Sagrada, Nabua, Camarines Sur. The trial court convicted all four of murder and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact lesson on the weight of positive eyewitness identification against bare denial, on the treatment of extrajudicial confessions, and on how treachery and evident premeditation are established from the manner and circumstances of the attack.

Procedural History

The four accused were charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. After trial, that court found all four guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, appreciated the aggravating circumstance of superior strength, sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of 8,000 pesos as actual and moral damages, and to pay the costs. All four appealed to the Supreme Court, but on July 26, 1957, Garbiles withdrew his appeal. The appeal of the remaining three appellants proceeded, and the Supreme Court decided the case in December 1960.

Facts

At about eleven o'clock in the evening of December 29, 1953, Perfecto Garbiles and Anastacio Bolivar approached Juan Belmonte in front of the barrio chapel of Sagrada and asked whether he had seen Edilberto Galan, Hilarion Rivera, and others from Barrio La Opinion. Receiving a negative answer, they left and joined Benjamin Tormes and Vicente Ollosca. After a short conversation among themselves, the four walked around the chapel and proceeded toward the national road.

Later that evening, Manuel Yorobe, carrying a lighted Petromax lamp, left the chapel with Juan Belmonte and several men and women on their way home. As they walked along the national road toward Barrio La Opinion, they were followed by Edilberto Galan and other persons. As the group neared a bridge, Garbiles, Bolivar, Tormes, and Ollosca, armed with pieces of iron, wood, and bamboo, suddenly emerged from the left side of the road and attacked Galan from behind, felling him to the ground. Yorobe turned and directed the Petromax lamp toward the commotion, after which he and several companions fled. Belmonte shouted at the assailants to stop beating Galan, prompting them to run away. Belmonte and Mariano Gastelo then approached the victim and helped him return to his house. Early the following morning he was taken to the hospital of Doctor Belmonte in Nabua, where he expired that evening.

On the morning of December 30, 1953, upon order of the chief of police of Nabua, patrolmen Filomeno Lomeda and Andres Tormes arrested Bolivar and Garbiles in their respective houses. On the way to the municipal building, Lomeda asked them whether it was true that they beat Galan, and they answered in the affirmative, adding that Galan had wanted to harm them sometime before during a dance in Barrio San Ramon. They named Tormes and Ollosca as their companions, and these two, when arrested, likewise readily admitted being in the group that assaulted Galan. Garbiles and Ollosca were questioned by the chief of police, and their statements, later sworn to before Justice of the Peace Juan Ballecer, became the extrajudicial statements marked as Exhibits E and F.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution witnesses sufficiently established the identity of the appellants as the assailants of Edilberto Galan.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving probative value to the extrajudicial statements marked as Exhibits E and F.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were established, so as to make the crime murder rather than homicide.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines and punishes the crime of murder, and it is the provision under which the trial court convicted the accused:

Article 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished with reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

The Court applied this provision when it affirmed the conviction for murder, holding that treachery and abuse of superior strength attended the killing.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the identity of the appellants as the assailants was conclusively established. The negative testimony of the appellants could not overcome the positive identification made by prosecution witnesses Belmonte and Gastelo, who were hardly five meters and about ten meters away, respectively, from the place where Galan was attacked. The appellants were personally well known to both witnesses, Bolivar being a cousin of Belmonte and a nephew of Gastelo. Yorobe's lighted Petromax lamp illuminated the scene when he turned it toward the commotion. There was nothing in the record to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely impute so serious an offense.

On the second issue, the Court held that the assignment of error against the extrajudicial statements was not only without merit but of no consequence, because aside from them there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also found no reason to believe that the appellants signed the statements by force or without knowing their contents, since Justice of the Peace Ballecer testified that the contents were translated into the appellants' own dialect and that they affirmed before him that they signed voluntarily.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the Solicitor General's submission that only homicide was established. It held that the qualifying circumstance was sufficiently shown, because on the evening in question the appellants had been looking for Galan and other residents of Barrio La Opinion who had previously attempted to harm them during a dance in Barrio San Ramon, and they attacked Galan simultaneously and unexpectedly from behind while he was walking along the road. This evidence, not having been directly rebutted, established the qualifying circumstance.

Doctrine

• Positive identification by eyewitnesses who knew the accused personally, made at close range and under adequate illumination, prevails over the accused's bare denials.
• Absence of proof of improper motive on the part of prosecution witnesses strengthens the credibility of their testimony.
• An extrajudicial statement is not indispensable where the record otherwise contains sufficient evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the voluntariness and regular execution of such a statement may be established by the testimony of the officer before whom it was sworn.
• Treachery and evident premeditation may be established from the manner of the attack, where the assailants deliberately sought the victim and attacked him simultaneously and unexpectedly from behind, and this qualifies the killing as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision in full, with costs, so the appellants remained convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that positive identification by credible eyewitnesses who knew the accused, made under adequate light and without any showing of improper motive, prevails over bare denial. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of evidence between eyewitness testimony and denial, and to test how treachery and evident premeditation are established from the manner of a sudden attack from behind.